British Airways - CC Industrial Relations & Negotiations
PPRuNe Person
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: see roster
Posts: 1,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A BASSA strike will very likely speed up the introduction of the 'New Fleet'. Then BA will be able to hasten the transfer of the 'expensive' routes across.
BA could add the cost of a strike to the cabin crew savings target.
Either way, strike or not, BA will win. In fact, they probably relish a strike as it will enable them to remove the "militant trouble-makers" at a stroke.
PS: CFC: I recently spent part of a sleepless night on a positioning trip, drinking coffee with the charming CSD in her 'office' - "I have nothing else to do" she said....
BA could add the cost of a strike to the cabin crew savings target.
Either way, strike or not, BA will win. In fact, they probably relish a strike as it will enable them to remove the "militant trouble-makers" at a stroke.
PS: CFC: I recently spent part of a sleepless night on a positioning trip, drinking coffee with the charming CSD in her 'office' - "I have nothing else to do" she said....
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sandpit
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see where you are coming from but lets not have a go at those who are very much pro a constructive approach to all of this.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: London
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
torC regarding the New Fleet affecting EF how so? I thought by changing the EF crew compliments to that of lgw was what they were after. Do you think BA will start the New Fleet and take EF trips too? What EF trips are even worth taking when the crew compliment is reduced and making savings. It made more sense to me that WW is where most changes needed to be made.
I think it will effect EF crew who wanted to transfer onto WW and might only be given the option of NF?
Matt101 I take back my comment. There are many crew who wanted a constructive approach I think my irritation was based on the frustration that if so many wanted a better approach why weren’t they heard and why are crew facing this!
British Airways unions say strike looks inevitable - Times Online
I think with articles like the above and the current times cabin crew are certainly not going to get the support from the public. I totally understand the need to fight for what you worked hard for over the years but I really find it hard to see that Strike Action will let nothing change..
I think it will effect EF crew who wanted to transfer onto WW and might only be given the option of NF?
Matt101 I take back my comment. There are many crew who wanted a constructive approach I think my irritation was based on the frustration that if so many wanted a better approach why weren’t they heard and why are crew facing this!
British Airways unions say strike looks inevitable - Times Online
I think with articles like the above and the current times cabin crew are certainly not going to get the support from the public. I totally understand the need to fight for what you worked hard for over the years but I really find it hard to see that Strike Action will let nothing change..
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New Fleet will provide significant savings over Eurofleet. Why pay three people £30 each for a GVA lunch when you can pay them each an hourly rate? Why put Eurofleet crew on expensive nightstops when you know any delay will have them asking for 18 hours off? In fact why have Eurofleet at all, doing so many one sector days, when you can have New Fleet doing 3 or 4 sector days every time?
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good to see that the selection and maintenance of the aim is paramount on CF. 4 pages on a Eurest discount card and climbing rapidly. To quote a fine military rumour website, "all aboard the outrage bus!". Is there nothing that won't cause people on that site to burst out in a fit of heavily carried moral disgust?
Oh, and heaven forbid one might dissent from the line of the hard done by.
MrB
Oh, and heaven forbid one might dissent from the line of the hard done by.
MrB
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The TimesOnline article (see above link) "comments" section is gathering pace too. T5, fuel hedging, fines for price fixing etc, all the usual suspects being dragged out. As if that lends credence to the situation as it is now.
"All aboard the outrage bus" - like it! Next stop - Apoplexy?
"All aboard the outrage bus" - like it! Next stop - Apoplexy?
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Ask OPS!
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good to see the Times also recognises the BASSA spin for what it is:
Couple that with a respondees point:
Perhaps that is what the company wishes to address in the future after cost cutting and rationalisation. Perhaps the future streamline BA could invest in new aircraft, new IFE and upgraded cabins. Sadly, in the current financial environment, the funds don't exist to invest in these things.
In recent weeks the cabin crew’s union has stepped up the rhetoric in preparation for a showdown with the airline’s bosses. In a recent message to members, the union said: “We now urge all our members to join with us and stand strong with us to prepare for the battle we face ahead. Have no doubts that the fight is coming, but together we are at our strongest and together we will win.”
Ask BA’s Premium customers how often the in-flight entertainment doesn’t work, the filthy airplanes they have to fly on, the lack of choice of meals, seats that don’t work, shortages of basic equipment.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: London
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think a lot of people on here & BA crew I speak to are missing the point re New Fleet. In my opinion, NF is not actually what BA necessarily want. It would be costly to set up and maintain, reduce flexibility with rostering and scheduling, and would have issues with regards to experience on board - I'm not sure the company will want the First cabin on a 744 to be crewed entirely with trainees when these customers are the main source of BA's income. Granted there are some ex-temps in the hold pool who could bring a bit of experience and this is probably why BA are keeping them there & have been contacting them regarding their interest in coming back. But a lot of these guys do only have about 10 months flying experience. Also, who will be the "in charge" crew member? Are they hoping that experienced crew from the existing fleets will transfer to NF to get a quick promotion? Or will they roster CSD's/ Pursers on NF flights until they can promote within the fleet? I'm not saying that BA won't introduce NF....in fact I think that after all this they are probably prepared to do so, but it is very complex and costly and far from ideal for BA, given their current financial situation and the fact they seem likely to be paying out substantial amounts in redundancy payments over the coming months.
What I really believe they want is new contracts for new crew who will fly within the existing LHR fleets on different terms & conditions. Over time, what is to stop BA from crewing the lucrative routes like SIN, SYD, NRT etc. more & more with the "new contract" crew, leaving crew on existing contracts to do all the East Coast USA/ Indian etc. nightstops. If the hourly rate is anything like at LGW, a three day BOM trip would generate something in the region of £100 in allowances for the new contract crew. I'm not entirely sure what current LHR WW crew get for a BOM trip but it can't be much more than that. So where are the savings from future crew going to come from? Rostering them on the long range trips so over time the company will be spending less and less on things like Box payments, expensive meal allowances in NRT etc. Ok the 900 hour rule may come into it if all the new contract crew are doing is long range trips, but then Qantas & Air NZ still manage to keep their LHR based crew within 900 hours despite them only operating long range flights.
Many BA crew I speak to seem to think that as long as their T&C's remain the same and NF doesn't eventuate, they will be ok and the savings will mostly be made from future crew. But given that most main crew on post 97 contarcts rely on trip allowances to boost their basic pay and in particular the more lucrative ones, the savings will also come from them in the form of lower allowances due to getting less and less of the lucrative trips. Whether the new recruits are flying on a seperate fleet is, as far as I can see irrelevant. BA can and will want to make the savings from the new contracts and will almost certainly prefer to do this without the expense of NF. So if BASSA does back down on a strike if BA agree to drop NF again, they will be playing right into BA's hands.
What I really believe they want is new contracts for new crew who will fly within the existing LHR fleets on different terms & conditions. Over time, what is to stop BA from crewing the lucrative routes like SIN, SYD, NRT etc. more & more with the "new contract" crew, leaving crew on existing contracts to do all the East Coast USA/ Indian etc. nightstops. If the hourly rate is anything like at LGW, a three day BOM trip would generate something in the region of £100 in allowances for the new contract crew. I'm not entirely sure what current LHR WW crew get for a BOM trip but it can't be much more than that. So where are the savings from future crew going to come from? Rostering them on the long range trips so over time the company will be spending less and less on things like Box payments, expensive meal allowances in NRT etc. Ok the 900 hour rule may come into it if all the new contract crew are doing is long range trips, but then Qantas & Air NZ still manage to keep their LHR based crew within 900 hours despite them only operating long range flights.
Many BA crew I speak to seem to think that as long as their T&C's remain the same and NF doesn't eventuate, they will be ok and the savings will mostly be made from future crew. But given that most main crew on post 97 contarcts rely on trip allowances to boost their basic pay and in particular the more lucrative ones, the savings will also come from them in the form of lower allowances due to getting less and less of the lucrative trips. Whether the new recruits are flying on a seperate fleet is, as far as I can see irrelevant. BA can and will want to make the savings from the new contracts and will almost certainly prefer to do this without the expense of NF. So if BASSA does back down on a strike if BA agree to drop NF again, they will be playing right into BA's hands.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sandpit
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flyboy - I agree with some of what you say but there are some bits I think you may see BA brush past quite easily..
All these problems (or not) have been experienced already at the testing ground that was LGW Single Fleet. 1400 crew, most of whom had never had any experience with the BA long haul product let alone a BA 777, save for a handful of 6 month temps and some Cabin Managers who had an extended conversion course managed fine. I imagine NF would start off on smaller crew numbers to establish the fleet and within no too long, Robert is your mothers brother, like Gatters you have an established, self sustaining fleet. As for flexibility, have you seen a Gatwick Roster? - when they (BA) want to they can pack in the hours very easily - more so than with an MBTR system.
Many easy answers to this; some Gatwick Crew would be happy to try, then there is the possibility of seconded old fleet crew or direct entry SCCM's
Unfortunately Bill Francis' email said the company specifically didn't want this due to the complexity involved.
Quite right an hourly rate 3 day trip is worth about £150 at Gatwick (including the ONA) which is probably more than it's worth at LHR WW at the moment - however it balances out as the long trips are considerably cheaper to crew at LGW (less crew, less variable payments).
Absolutely right - long range is where these crew are likely to go - "new fleet" probably also on new aircraft like the A380 which is designed for these low frequency long haul routes or the ULR flights that we should see the 787 doing (if the rivets ever get fixed!) This is why BASSA need to seriously change their approach to negotiating how you are paid - so that reliance on variables is no longer necessary.
I am sorry to pick on your post, it's nothing personal, but I think it is important to realise these things so that, hopefully, you can push for some protection from what is coming.
As ever I wish you all the best.
It would be costly to set up and maintain, reduce flexibility with rostering and scheduling, and would have issues with regards to experience on board - I'm not sure the company will want the First cabin on a 744 to be crewed entirely with trainees when these customers are the main source of BA's income. Granted there are some ex-temps in the hold pool who could bring a bit of experience
Also, who will be the "in charge" crew member? Are they hoping that experienced crew from the existing fleets will transfer to NF to get a quick promotion?
What I really believe they want is new contracts for new crew who will fly within the existing LHR fleets on different terms & conditions.
If the hourly rate is anything like at LGW, a three day BOM trip would generate something in the region of £100 in allowances for the new contract crew. I'm not entirely sure what current LHR WW crew get for a BOM trip but it can't be much more than that.
So where are the savings from future crew going to come from? Rostering them on the long range trips so over time the company will be spending less and less on things like Box payments, expensive meal allowances in NRT etc. Ok the 900 hour rule may come into it if all the new contract crew are doing is long range trips, but then Qantas & Air NZ still manage to keep their LHR based crew within 900 hours despite them only operating long range flights.
I am sorry to pick on your post, it's nothing personal, but I think it is important to realise these things so that, hopefully, you can push for some protection from what is coming.
As ever I wish you all the best.
Last edited by Matt101; 17th Oct 2009 at 19:23.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: row 8
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A friend of mine who is BA long-haul CC based at LHR has no problems with the company proposals as long as USA westcoast (LAX, SFO)nightstops are not reduced to one night. She says they have a pretty easy job (having previously flown charter) and the loss of one CC per flight will just mean they all have to work a little harder ... and what's the problem with that?
Trips like NAS (four nights), PHX (three nights), MEX (three nights), SIN/SYD are hardly what you could call real hard work.
You guys and gals provide an excellent service (I fly quite regularly as pax), but the job not the most difficult or demanding in the world. And when your flight is over, no problems to take home with you. No issues to wrestle with in preparation for tomorrow's meetings. No worries to concern you because you're not achieving your sales targets.
I think a dose of realism is necessary. The whole world has had to face up to the fact that we're in an economic mess. As a result many people have lost their jobs, many have taken pay cuts, many have had pay freezes imposed. BA CC cannot expect to be left untouched.
What the airline is proposing seems very fair and reasonable to me in the circumstances. Of course your union is shouting and posturing because that's what unions have to do to justify your dues. But do they really make any difference? Does your union really represent its members? More likely they are union fat-cats living the good life off your dues.
Trade unions are a thing of the past. They ceased to be relevant when flat-caps went out of fashion and when we stopped referring to lunch at midday as dinner and our evening meal as tea. If I were you I'd refuse to pay any more union dues and leave the union. Believe me, nothing would change, BA would treat you just the same, and you would save money.
Trips like NAS (four nights), PHX (three nights), MEX (three nights), SIN/SYD are hardly what you could call real hard work.
You guys and gals provide an excellent service (I fly quite regularly as pax), but the job not the most difficult or demanding in the world. And when your flight is over, no problems to take home with you. No issues to wrestle with in preparation for tomorrow's meetings. No worries to concern you because you're not achieving your sales targets.
I think a dose of realism is necessary. The whole world has had to face up to the fact that we're in an economic mess. As a result many people have lost their jobs, many have taken pay cuts, many have had pay freezes imposed. BA CC cannot expect to be left untouched.
What the airline is proposing seems very fair and reasonable to me in the circumstances. Of course your union is shouting and posturing because that's what unions have to do to justify your dues. But do they really make any difference? Does your union really represent its members? More likely they are union fat-cats living the good life off your dues.
Trade unions are a thing of the past. They ceased to be relevant when flat-caps went out of fashion and when we stopped referring to lunch at midday as dinner and our evening meal as tea. If I were you I'd refuse to pay any more union dues and leave the union. Believe me, nothing would change, BA would treat you just the same, and you would save money.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is why BASSA need to seriously change the approach to negotiating how you are paid - so that reliance on variables is no longer necessary.
In the modern age, unions have a place only as a means of ensuring consultation occurs and safety is maintained. The "us and them" rhetoric of Unite is a disappointing reflection that many of those organisations have yet to realise the reality that they have it much better than the mass of lower-classes who are not represented, and that the population as a whole has achieved a good standard of living that means people are no longer on the breadline.
Many reps do a great job along more modern lines, but the failings in some specific industries and unions are clear to all but those in the business themselves.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: southampton
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've read the whole thread and feel enlightened on the reasons for the required change and how BA may plan to 'fairly' implement said change.
I agree that BASSA has failed the electorate criminally and that the company has no choice but to impose a more realistic working structure on what we all know has for many years been a relatively 'cushy number' compared to similar jobs and indeed the same job in other airlines.
....I do, however, think you're pulling the wool over your eyes if you think that any more than 3 or 4% of the BA cabin crew have read this post or any other posts like it....the Crew Forum tells a very different story, as do the majority of the cabin crew who (understandably) are having to slake their thirst for knowledge on the topic by drinking putrid toilet water.
Many still seem to think this whole situation was caused by 'price fixing' and fuel hedging errors, and I would say most feel that BA have singled them out to take advantage of a dip in profits to dip into their pockets and steal pay and T's & C's. They've been told not to trust the management and that the only truth they need to know will be disseminated by their dictatorial, bullying, self-satisfying, top-end orientated union. The enlightened ones who recognise the severity of the situation and how deeply BASSA has let them down cannot speak out for fear of castigation....it seems that those who pay the union for a service are denied basic freedoms we fight for in many corners of the world....and a service.
Is there no way that those Cabin Crew members who are reading this, that have read the WHOLE thread, can find some way of passing on the VITAL information contained within it to the rest of the crew?
Knowledge is Power and it seems that the majority of the hard-working crew are being brainwashed with PROVEN tripe from the union - I'm not saying all will agree, of course not, but one of the main functions of a union is to gather information from ALL sources and present it the members, providing them with an opportunity to MAKE UP THEIR OWN MINDS and ultimately VOTE DEMOCRATICALLY on their future, and as in this case, also on the future of British Airways.
Why did BASSA refuse to look at BA's financial accounts?
Why did they refuse to negociate when their members' futures hung in the balance, then ignorantly copy & paste a small part of the Pilot's cost saving agreement and offer that their members take a PAY CUT? An offer that their members neither wanted, or more importantly, did NOT VOTE on?!
Why did they claim to have offered £140m in cuts but keep it secret from the members that Price, Waterhouse Coopers, one of the most respected INDEPENDENT auditors in the World, valued their offer at only 54m?!?!?
Why do they control the flow of information to their members so tightly that many continue to believe that the company paid for a retirement ball for the 78 VR pilots and other such lies? Why not quash those rumours on the CF in the interests of HONESTY ,INTEGRITY and FREEDOM OF INFORMATION.
WHY DID BASSA 'POSTPONE' UNION REP ELECTIONS WITHOUT ASING THE MEMBERS?!?!?!
Why do most members suspect/know that the fat-cats who run BASSA, (who are on a better contract, have a better pension, do less work for more money to better destinations) only have their own selfish interests at heart and not that of the greater and wider majority?
Crew should be asking these questions OUT IN THE OPEN, WITHOUT FEAR OF REPERCUSSIONS, BULLYING, HARRASSMENT, you know....all the things the 'union' is meant to be there to protect you against.
No-one wants to see the hard working core of the BA Cabin Crew take home less money, that wouldn't be right and I believe it is totally avoidable....all the company needs is for the operation to become more efficient, which can easily save the £140m....I feel sure it's achievable with relatively little pain and that successful negociation could take NEW FLEET off the table.
One option might be to come into work for the same (or possibly fewer) hours that you do already, but work more productively. Accept that one sector days are unrealistic and uncompetitive....if you're going to iron a shirt, drive to work and be away from home for 12 hours but only be 'productive' for 3 hours, why not agree to do 6, spend less time hanging around the CRC, go home earlier and come into work for FEWER days each month? It's just an example, but I truly believe that there's a mutually agreeable solution out there that you can have your say on with the correct representation. It looks as if BASSA have missed the boat and squandered any discussion rights with the company. BA have played the long slow game, dotting the i's, crossing the t's, so that they are in a position to impose changes, start up new fleet and, if BASSA move to strike, take the Union down too.
I feel for the cabin crew, I really do, because it would appear that they have been led blindly down a dark alley by a union that they pay good money to and in which they put all their faith in. In my experience the vast majority of crew are hard-working (up to industrial limits), very good at their job and great ambassadors for BA; it's just such a shame that the diligent masses appear to be being led the slaughter by a negligent few.
I agree that BASSA has failed the electorate criminally and that the company has no choice but to impose a more realistic working structure on what we all know has for many years been a relatively 'cushy number' compared to similar jobs and indeed the same job in other airlines.
....I do, however, think you're pulling the wool over your eyes if you think that any more than 3 or 4% of the BA cabin crew have read this post or any other posts like it....the Crew Forum tells a very different story, as do the majority of the cabin crew who (understandably) are having to slake their thirst for knowledge on the topic by drinking putrid toilet water.
Many still seem to think this whole situation was caused by 'price fixing' and fuel hedging errors, and I would say most feel that BA have singled them out to take advantage of a dip in profits to dip into their pockets and steal pay and T's & C's. They've been told not to trust the management and that the only truth they need to know will be disseminated by their dictatorial, bullying, self-satisfying, top-end orientated union. The enlightened ones who recognise the severity of the situation and how deeply BASSA has let them down cannot speak out for fear of castigation....it seems that those who pay the union for a service are denied basic freedoms we fight for in many corners of the world....and a service.
Is there no way that those Cabin Crew members who are reading this, that have read the WHOLE thread, can find some way of passing on the VITAL information contained within it to the rest of the crew?
Knowledge is Power and it seems that the majority of the hard-working crew are being brainwashed with PROVEN tripe from the union - I'm not saying all will agree, of course not, but one of the main functions of a union is to gather information from ALL sources and present it the members, providing them with an opportunity to MAKE UP THEIR OWN MINDS and ultimately VOTE DEMOCRATICALLY on their future, and as in this case, also on the future of British Airways.
Why did BASSA refuse to look at BA's financial accounts?
Why did they refuse to negociate when their members' futures hung in the balance, then ignorantly copy & paste a small part of the Pilot's cost saving agreement and offer that their members take a PAY CUT? An offer that their members neither wanted, or more importantly, did NOT VOTE on?!
Why did they claim to have offered £140m in cuts but keep it secret from the members that Price, Waterhouse Coopers, one of the most respected INDEPENDENT auditors in the World, valued their offer at only 54m?!?!?
Why do they control the flow of information to their members so tightly that many continue to believe that the company paid for a retirement ball for the 78 VR pilots and other such lies? Why not quash those rumours on the CF in the interests of HONESTY ,INTEGRITY and FREEDOM OF INFORMATION.
WHY DID BASSA 'POSTPONE' UNION REP ELECTIONS WITHOUT ASING THE MEMBERS?!?!?!
Why do most members suspect/know that the fat-cats who run BASSA, (who are on a better contract, have a better pension, do less work for more money to better destinations) only have their own selfish interests at heart and not that of the greater and wider majority?
Crew should be asking these questions OUT IN THE OPEN, WITHOUT FEAR OF REPERCUSSIONS, BULLYING, HARRASSMENT, you know....all the things the 'union' is meant to be there to protect you against.
No-one wants to see the hard working core of the BA Cabin Crew take home less money, that wouldn't be right and I believe it is totally avoidable....all the company needs is for the operation to become more efficient, which can easily save the £140m....I feel sure it's achievable with relatively little pain and that successful negociation could take NEW FLEET off the table.
One option might be to come into work for the same (or possibly fewer) hours that you do already, but work more productively. Accept that one sector days are unrealistic and uncompetitive....if you're going to iron a shirt, drive to work and be away from home for 12 hours but only be 'productive' for 3 hours, why not agree to do 6, spend less time hanging around the CRC, go home earlier and come into work for FEWER days each month? It's just an example, but I truly believe that there's a mutually agreeable solution out there that you can have your say on with the correct representation. It looks as if BASSA have missed the boat and squandered any discussion rights with the company. BA have played the long slow game, dotting the i's, crossing the t's, so that they are in a position to impose changes, start up new fleet and, if BASSA move to strike, take the Union down too.
I feel for the cabin crew, I really do, because it would appear that they have been led blindly down a dark alley by a union that they pay good money to and in which they put all their faith in. In my experience the vast majority of crew are hard-working (up to industrial limits), very good at their job and great ambassadors for BA; it's just such a shame that the diligent masses appear to be being led the slaughter by a negligent few.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: LGW
Posts: 595
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What I find amazing is that as long as NewFleet isn't set up, current cc still think it's acceptable to hire new crew on a different contract to what the current one is. Do they really think that would be a good thing? 
It just goes to show that the current reps/(some) cc do not care about anyone but themselves and their own t&cs. I know I've raised this issue before, but I haven't had any responses from current cc who think it's a good idea. To me, it is more or less the same as NF, apart from that they have to work alongside crew who earn x times more per trip.
I said a long time ago that a different pay structure could be a good thing. Hourly pay would even out take-home pay from month to month and they wouldn't be so dependent on long range trips to make up the money. This could enable a bidding system and hopefully get rid of the scheduling corruption.
I know I'm repeating myself here, but everyone else seem to go round in circles, so thought I'd join the hamster wheel...
Gg
Ps. I've not got high hopes for any results for the next "meeting", I must say. Hamley's must be out of toys soon if this continues for much longer. It would be difficult to run a successful ballot at the moment due to the postal issues as well, so I personally think this will drag on for longer. Sigh..
It just goes to show that the current reps/(some) cc do not care about anyone but themselves and their own t&cs. I know I've raised this issue before, but I haven't had any responses from current cc who think it's a good idea. To me, it is more or less the same as NF, apart from that they have to work alongside crew who earn x times more per trip.
I said a long time ago that a different pay structure could be a good thing. Hourly pay would even out take-home pay from month to month and they wouldn't be so dependent on long range trips to make up the money. This could enable a bidding system and hopefully get rid of the scheduling corruption.
I know I'm repeating myself here, but everyone else seem to go round in circles, so thought I'd join the hamster wheel...
Gg
Ps. I've not got high hopes for any results for the next "meeting", I must say. Hamley's must be out of toys soon if this continues for much longer. It would be difficult to run a successful ballot at the moment due to the postal issues as well, so I personally think this will drag on for longer. Sigh..
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately everyone here is in danger of preaching to the choir, unless staff are somehow informed of the wealth of information presented here...
It is no different from the Royal Mail, whom I note have the following trouble (BBC):
'"The CWU's strike announcement simply shows just how dishonest the union's claim to embrace the need to modernise is and underlines the union's opposition to simple changes such as its members working flexibly for all of the hours they are paid and using the equipment provided to do the job," Mr Higson said.
"Instead the CWU is demanding an absolute veto over future change and modernisation - and demanding more money - backed up with strike action, which they know will drive customers away."'
It is no different from the Royal Mail, whom I note have the following trouble (BBC):
'"The CWU's strike announcement simply shows just how dishonest the union's claim to embrace the need to modernise is and underlines the union's opposition to simple changes such as its members working flexibly for all of the hours they are paid and using the equipment provided to do the job," Mr Higson said.
"Instead the CWU is demanding an absolute veto over future change and modernisation - and demanding more money - backed up with strike action, which they know will drive customers away."'
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: London
Posts: 276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What I find amazing is that as long as NewFleet isn't set up, current cc still think it's acceptable to hire new crew on a different contract to what the current one is. Do they really think that would be a good thing?
I said a long time ago that a different pay structure could be a good thing. Hourly pay would even out take-home pay from month to month and they wouldn't be so dependent on long range trips to make up the money.
Last edited by nuigini; 18th Oct 2009 at 09:49.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: London
Posts: 276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crew should be asking these questions OUT IN THE OPEN, WITHOUT FEAR OF REPERCUSSIONS, BULLYING, HARRASSMENT, you know....all the things the 'union' is meant to be there to protect you against.
Why did they refuse to negociate when their members' futures hung in the balance, then ignorantly copy & paste a small part of the Pilot's cost saving agreement and offer that their members take a PAY CUT? An offer that their members neither wanted, or more importantly, did NOT VOTE on?!
BASSA and UNITE can't understand why BA rejected their proposal when it actually included a pay cut! Some people can't understand why BA is turning down BASSA's £120 million deal and risking a strike when they are only £20 million apart.